COA 377876 KAREEM JANOUDI V ASMAA ABDEL-AZIM Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 7/20/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
KAREEM JANOUDI,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
July 20, 2026
2:44 PM
v No. 377876
Ingham Circuit Court
ASMAA ABDEL-AZIM, LC No. 21-000696-DM
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and PATEL and KOROBKIN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right the trial court’s denial of her motion to modify custody of
the parties’ minor child. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was granted sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child in divorce
proceedings. Subsequently, defendant filed multiple emergency motions alleging that plaintiff had
neglected the child and had allowed the child to be abused. Children’s Protective Services (CPS)
investigated defendant’s allegations and found that defendant’s allegations could not be
corroborated or substantiated. The trial court denied defendant’s emergency motions after finding
that defendant attempted to manipulate the court and the minor child. The trial court, instead,
ordered the parties to participate in co-parenting counseling.
After participating in counseling for nearly a year, plaintiff moved to substitute the
counselor because he believed the counselor was unable to remain impartial. Shortly after, the
counselor sent a letter to the trial court indicating that she believed that plaintiff was not credible
because he allegedly made multiple inconsistent statements regarding the abuse and neglect
allegations. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s request to change counselors and moved for sole legal
and physical custody of the child, arguing that the counselor’s letter was sufficient evidence to
revisit the custody arrangement. The trial court discussed the counselor’s letter at a hearing on the
parties’ motions. Although the court originally scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the letter, it
later cancelled the hearing and issued an order noting that the parties’ disagreement regarding the
counselor was not sufficient to revisit the custody arrangement. This appeal followed.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
II. CUSTODY MODIFICATION
Defendant argues that she established a proper cause or change of circumstances to modify
custody, and that the trial court erred by dismissing her motion without holding an evidentiary
hearing. We disagree.
In a child-custody dispute, “all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed
on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or
committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28;
see also Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 85; 782 NW2d 480 (2010). As this Court has explained:
We apply three standards of review in custody cases. The great weight of
the evidence standard applies to all findings of fact. A trial court’s findings
regarding the existence of an established custodial environment and regarding each
custody factor should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the
opposite direction. An abuse of discretion standard applies to the trial court’s
discretionary rulings such as custody decisions. Questions of law are reviewed for
clear legal error. A trial court commits clear legal error when it incorrectly chooses,
interprets, or applies the law.
* * *
In child custody cases, [a]n abuse of discretion exists when the trial court’s decision
is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity
of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias. [Stoudemire v
Thomas, 344 Mich App 34, 42-43; 999 NW2d 43 (2022) (cleaned up).]
A party seeking to modify a custody order must establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that there is proper cause or a change of circumstances to warrant revisiting the custody
arrangement. Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). This
threshold must be met “before the trial court can consider whether an established custodial
environment exists . . . and conduct a review of the best interest factors.” Id. at 509. A proper
cause to modify a child’s custody exists if there are “one or more appropriate grounds that have or
could have a significant effect on the child’s life to the extent that a reevaluation of the child’s
custodial situation should be undertaken.” Id. at 511. “[T]o establish a ‘change of circumstances,’
a movant must prove that, since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding
custody of the child, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have
materially changed.” Id. at 513. To warrant revisiting the custody arrangement, “the change of
circumstances must have occurred after entry of the last custody order.” Id. at 514.
Here, defendant failed to establish proper cause or change of circumstances to revisit the
custody arrangement. The trial court considered defendant’s allegations when it entered the last
custody order and, using its “special opportunity . . . to judge the credibility of the witnesses who
appeared before it,” MCR 2.613(C), found that defendant was not credible. The trial court
correctly concluded that the counselor’s letter, which expressed her opinion that defendant was
more credible than plaintiff, was not proper cause to revisit custody. Given that CPS investigated
but could not corroborate these allegations, we cannot conclude that this finding was against the

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
great weight of the evidence. See Stoudemire, 344 Mich App at 42. The counselor’s letter was
also insufficient to establish a change of circumstances because it simply discussed the counselor’s
contradictory opinion on an issue the trial court already decided before it entered the last custody
order. See Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 513-514. Furthermore, the trial court did not err by
denying defendant’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing because defendant failed to
establish proper cause or a change in circumstances to revisit custody. Killingbeck v Killingbeck,
269 Mich App 132, 145; 711 NW2d 759 (2005).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Sima G. Patel
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin

-- 3 of 3 --